Summary of U.S. activity in advanced vehicles

ARCH'

Lab. v.

J

Mi

_a41

UNCLASSiFIED

_/1Z

SUMMARY OF U.S. ACTIVITY IN ADVANCED VEHICLES

November 1985 to May 1986 (u)

For May 1986 SWG/6 Meeting

Lab. V.

Scieepshoúwkwìd

Technische Nogeschool

Deft

K. Spaulding NAVSEA 50151

UNCLASSIFIED

r

z-INTRODUCT ION

This paper summarizes U.S. activity in Advanced NavaL Vehicles for the

period 1 December 1985 to 1 May 1986. Reference is made to the previous

report delivered to the November 1985 SWGI6 meeting. In general this summary

does not repeat information provided in the November summary.

ACV, SES, SWATH and planing catamaran activities are addressed in the

categories of operation/construction, Acquisition Design and Studies, and

CONFORN and Other Exploratory.

Also attached is a paper on future applications of SWATH (attachment i).

OUTLINE

OPERATIONS/CONSTRUCTION

SES 200

MSH (sEs)

SES Special Warfare Craft (SWCM)

SE C AT

SSP KAIMALINO BNl HALCYON

DUPLUS/TWIN DRILL

St Augustine Trawlers' SWATH Suave Lino LCAC AALC JEFF(A) RODOLF (sEs) AP-188 Army LACV-30 D-PAAC

Maryland Police 1000 TD (ACV) Griffon Hovercraft 2500 TD

Geophysical Services 1000 TD (ACV)

Corsair MK i (ACV)

Contender i (ACV)

PRN PCH

VICTORIA (Hydrofoil) Sea World (Hydrofoil) Albatross (Hydrofoil) International Catamarans Fjellstrand Catamaran

ACQUISITION DESIGNS & STUDIES

LCX PXM

Army LANP-H SWATH T-AGOS AGOR-23

SWATH Leasing Initiative USCG SWATH

Army SWATH

SWATH Cruise Missile Target Boat SWATH EOD Craft

CONFORM & OTHER EXPLORATORY

Arctic ACV

LSCS

SES Sea Lift Ship SWATH FF Studies VMAP CCX SWATH ATS(X) SWATH LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES TITLE i SWCM 2 SSP KAIMALINO 3 RMI HALCYON 4 DTJPLUS/TWIN DRILL 5 LCAC 6 AALC JEFF(A) 7 RODOLF (sEs) 8 AP-188 9 Army LACV-30

10 Army LACV-30 Characteristics

11 D-PAAC 12 Griffon Hovercraft 2500 TD 13 VICTORIA (Hydrofoil) 14 Albatross (Hydrofoil) 15 NICHOLS BROTBERS/INCAT 16 Fjellstrand 38.8 M Catamaran 17 PXM Alternatives Sutrnnary 18 PXM Hydrofoil Profiles 19 PXM Hydrofoil Propulsion 20 PXN SES Profiles 21 PX}1 SES Sub-Systems 22 PXM SES Lift/Propulsion

23 SWATH T-AGOS Bow View

24 SWATH T-AGOS Requirements

25 SWATH T-AGOS Profiles

26 SWATH T-AGOS Hull Form Producibility Features

27 SWATH T-AGOS Weights

28 SWATH T-AGOS Rudders/Appendages

29 USCG SWATH

30 ATS(X) SWATH Bow/Stern Elevation

31 ATS(X) SWATH Engine Room

32 ATS(X) SWATH Steering Gear Concept

33 ATS(X) SWATH Comparison of Capabilities

SES 200

The current deployment of the SES 200 to the UK, Spain, France and Germany,

for operations and testing by the host countries, is progressing well.

MSH (sEs)

Shock tests of a 40-ft full-scale section of the hull of the MSH were

completed in mid-April

_1986.

_{The schedule for construction of the lead ship}

is uncertain.

SES Special Warfare Craft (sWc?) (SEA Viking) (Figure 1)

The aluminum hull of the 100 ton prototype SWCM is currently near completion.

Delivery is scheduled in July

1986.

The RMI contract has options for an

additional 18 crafz which could be built by RMI and a second source by

_1989.

RNI is currently experiencing economic difficulties and has filed for

"Chapter 11" bankruptcy procedures.

SECAT

Several escort designs of the SES catamaran (SECAT) have been developed. Model tests have been conducted and a 4.5-ton manned model, for use as a

target boat, was delivered to the Patuxent River Test Facility in January

1986

and has since been undergoing builder's trials.

SSP KAIÌIALINO (Figure 2)

This 219 ton SWATH is in its 13th year of operation with Naval Ocean Systems

Center in Hawaii on a great variety of NOSC tasks.

1MI HALCYON (Figure 3)

This aluminum SWATH of approximately 60 tons, is currently conducting

seakeeping trials off the coast of California under contract to NAVSEA. Some

contract research has also been performed for the USCG and DTNSRDC.

DtJPLUS/TWIN DRILL (Figure 4)

This, 1400 ton,

1969

SWATH was purchased from a company in the Netherlands by

fliC, a New York based offshore oil survey firm. The ship, renamed TWIN

DRILL, is operating out of Houston on offshore oil surveys including support of remotely operated vehicles.

St. Augustine Trawelers' SWATH

Charles Rains of St Augustine Trawelers' has built and is operating an 80

foot SWATH scalloper named the "CHARWIN."

Suave Lino

Leonard Friedman's SWATH sport fishing boat has reportedly been made

available as a tender for the Americas Cup Trials this year in Hawaii. Mr.

Friedman is currently developing the design of a new SWATH pleasure craft.

LCAC (Figure 5)

Bell Aerospace has delivered two craft to the Navy. Currently, 12 craft are

under contract to Bell. and two to Lockheed, the second source contractor. _By

the end of FY86, contracts for an additional 5 craft are anticipated. No

contracts are proposed for FY87, and nine instead of twelve LCACs annually

are scheduled for the remaining years in the five-year plan. $ll.8M,

including $O.5M for RDT&E, has been requested in FY87 and an additional

$2l1.3M has been requested for the 9 LCACs projected for FY88.

AALC JEFF(A) (Figure 6)

The U.S. Navy's Amphibious Assault Landing Craft (AALC) prototype ACV,

JEFF(A), remains on stand-by at Panama City, Florida following its return in

1984 from a very successful 8-month Arctic-Winter service in the Beaufort

Sea. Future work with this craft is anticipated.

RODOLF (SES) (Figure 7)

The Bell-Halter Marine RODOLF SES commissioned in 1980, is being operated as

a hydrographic-survey boat by the Portland U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

AP-l88 (Figure 8)

Since early 1985, one BHC AP-188 ACV, with modified maneuvering controls, has

been successfully operated by the U.S. Navy as a trainer for LCAC crews in

Panama City, Florida.

Army LACV-30 (Figure 9 & 10)

Between mid-1982 and the end of 1983, twelve LACV-30 production craft were

delivered to the U.S. Army's 331st Transportation Company at Fort Story,

Virginia. A total of nine of an additional twelve ACVs were delivered by the

end of 1985. Delivery of the final three craft is scheduled to be made by

June 1986, at which time all 24 production units will be operational (12

craft with the 331st Transportation Company, 8 with the 8th Transportation Company and 4 craft to be held at Fort Story on stand-by). One of the two

prototype LACV-30s is currently supported in a three year RDT&E program by

DTNSRDC at their Patuxent River, Maryland, Test Facility. The other

prototype remains on stand-by at Fort Story.

D-PAAC (Figure 11)

The self-propelled ACV hoverbarge, D-PAAC, built in 1980 by Hover Systems, Inc., was purchased in 1985 by the U.S. Army for LAMP-H-related exploratory

development at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. In July 1985, this craft was used

successfully by the Army to retrieve a Chinook helicopter which had crashed

on mud-flats in the upper reaches of the Delaware River, New Jersey.

Maryland Police 1000 TD (ACV)

In April 1985, the Griffon (UK) 1000 TD ACV successfully completed its

one-year inservice evaluation with the Maryland Natural Resources Police in

Annapolis. The craft, on loan from Hover Systems, Inc., Pennsylvania, has

since remained in service as part of the agency's fleet.

Griffon Hovercraft 2500 TD(Figure 12)

Hover Systems, Inc. is also completing construction of a 28-seat Griffon 2500

TD under license. The craft will be shipped to Vancouver this spring and

will be used to carry visitors between the waterfront sites of Canada's _Expo

86

Geophysical Services 1000 TDs (ACv)

Since April 1985, Geophysical Services, Inc. (U.S.A.) has had three Griffon

1000 TD ACVs performing logistic-support services for a seismic-survey

project on the Yellow River Delta of the People's Republic of China.

Corsair MX 1 (ACV)

Eight Corsair MX i ACVs have been constructed at Air Cushion Technologies'

facilities in Anchorage, Alaska. Two additional craft are under

construction. The 40-ft long craft can carry up to eight passengers.

Contender i (Acv)

Alaska Hovercraft Inc. has several of their 13-seat Contender ACVs

transporting passengers and freight in support of the oil industry on

Alaska's North Slope.

PBN

The six ships of the PHM squadron at Key West continue their effective and

reliable operations. _{They were recently involved in the Search for}

Space-Shuttle debris.

PCH

The PCH is still in commission. It is being maintained and operated by

Boeing with no Navy crew assigned. _{Current plans are for a joint U.S./Canada}

program in towing a Westinghouse VDS. Future plans call for a noise

reduction program. There are current funding difficulties.

VICTORIA (Hydrofoil) (Figure 13)

This 40 ton hydrofoil, which first operated as a passenger ferry in 1965, has

been refurbished for use as a ferry to serve Catalina Island, California.

Renewal of the Coast Guard certification for _{this craft has not yet been}

obtained.

Sea World (Hydrofoil)

Three Sea World hydrofoils, built in 1964 by Sprague Engineering Co. and

redesigned by Helmut Koch in 1981, are still in sight-seeing service at Sea

World, San Diego, where they transport, around Mission Bay, as many as 600

sight-seeing passengers per hour during the surer months.

6

Albatross (Hydrofoil) (Figure 14)

One of the orginal 20 "Albatross't hydrofoils designed by Helmut Koch, NY, in

the early 60's is still in service on Lake Superior. Operations with one

other on the Great Salt Lake have been suspended due to excessive flooding of

the terminal areas.

International Catamarans (26M and 24M) (Figure 15)

Nichols Brothers (USA), licensee of the Australian Company INCAT, have

outstanding orders for two 26m high-speed catamarans: a ferry to be based in

Juneau, Alaska and an overnight cruising boat for an unannounced customer,. Nichols Brothers had previously built two INCAT 22m commercial cruise boats

which were launched in the summer of 1984 and are currently operating in the

Pacific Northwest. On the east coast, a 24m catamaran is nearing completion

at Atlantic and Gulf Boat Building; another INCAT licensee. This craft wilL

be used for service in the Bahamas.

Fjellstrand 38.8M Catamaran (Figure 16)

In April this year, Clipper Navigation (USA) will take delivery of a

490--passenger, 38.8m, Fjellstrand catamaran to be introduced in May 1986 on a

West-Coast route linking Seattle and Vancouver Island. This is the first

contract for a high-speed catamaran to be placed overseas by a U.S. operator.

LCX

An acquisition program for this LCU/LCM-8 replacement is

itt

the planning

stage. A Tentative Operational Requirements (TOR) document has been issued.

SES, ACV, and conventional craft will all be considered - over a large range

of payloads and speeds. Both SES and ACV are very attractive candidates for

the LCX.

PXH (Figures 17 through 22)

This acquisition design program will produce a follow on to the PHM - with

added ASW capability. Five variants have been developed and costed at the

feasibility level. The alternatives include a 590 ton hydrofoil and steel

SES at 1390 and 1450 tons. The future of this program is currently

uncertain.

Army LAMP-H

The U.S. Army Lighter, Amiphibious, Heavy-Lift (LAMP-H) prototype is being

developed to meet a requirement for an air-cushion vehicle for use in

Logistics-Over-The-Shore (LOTS) operations. A solicitation leading to Army

award of a CPIP contract to a single contractor was issued in February 1986,

but is currently on hold pending possible modification. The planned effort

would include prototype design, technical feasibility testing of proposed

systems using the U.S. Army experimental hoverbarge D-PAAC, a Logistics

Support Analysis, prototype fabrication and prototype testing. Latest

information indicates that this program is, at least temporarily, cancelled.

SWATH T-AGOS (Figures 23 through 28)

The Contract design for the 3400 ton SWATH T-AGOS is complete with a Request

for Proposals (PSP) for construction to be issued in May. A single lead ship

will be acquired with FY86 funds. Twelve shipbuilders provided one or more

representatives who participated in the ship design at NAVSEA. Bidding is

expected to be competitive and knowledgeable. The currently deployed 2300

ton monohulls proved incapable of maintaining station in high sea states. A

SWATH or a much larger monohull is clearly required.

AGOR- 23

This is an acquisition design for an AGOR to be operated by a U.S. University

after procurement by the Navy. The initial NAVSEA design (SWATH AGX) was

considered excessively large and costed out at about $80 M. $35 M has been

budgeted for this ship and a circular of requirements is in preparation which

allows either a SWATH or monohull proposal by shipbuilders. The SWATH has obvious advantages but a monohuLl is expected to be the least cost solution.

SWATH Leasing Initiative

The Navy is currently investigating the possibility of leasing a SWATH in the

neighborhood of 3000 tons for the purpose of evaluating SWATH in handling various equipment for several missions. Prior agreements would facilitate

the construction of a SWATH for lease to the Navy.

USCG SWATH (Figure 29)

The Coast Guard has completed a

contract

design

for

a 600

ton aluminum

coastal patrol SWATH with a small helicopter. The REP was near release when

the program was canceled. No change is evident in the near future.

Army SWATH

The Army has issued an PSP to design and build a 60 ton SWATH, apparently

modeled on

the RI Halcyon.

The proposals must include a design. The

acquisition will be Z stage; contract design, and detailed design and

construction.

SWATH Cruise Missile Target Boat

The design has been complete or this small SWATH for some time. The

requirement for acquisition is still viable but delays are being experienced.

SWATH EOD Craft

SWATH and moriohull are competing here for the initial acqusition of 2 craft

with 19 or 20 to follow. The SWATH meets the requirements while the monohull

does not. It is probable that, at least initially, the monohull will be

selected on a cost basis.

Arctic ACV

This FY85 C0NF0R1 design is complete and a final design report has been

issued. Two designs were developed; an LCAC variant and a new design

LSCS

The LSCS (Landing Ship Combat Support) is an SES amphibious assault craft

(beaching) performing an LST mission. It was initiated as an FY86 CONFORM

design with three variants sized at 2900, 6300, and 13000 tons.

Effectiveness studies indicate the mid size to be the most attractive. Since

there is currently not a clearly defined mission for such a ship, these

studies may be terminated.

SES Sea Lift Ship

There is considerable current interest in a high speed sea lift capability. An SES/ACV "systemt' design may be undertaken for FY87 in CONFORM. An SES

ship in the 15,000 - 25,000 ton category would carry its own ACV lighters.

SWATH VF Studies

As noted in the November summary, several SWATH F? design studies have been

conducted. The SWATH offers outstanding motion reduction with improved air

and weapons operations but consistently suffers a 40% penalty in full load displacement when compared to the monohull (see attached paper on future

SWATH application).

VMAP

The Variable Mission Air Platform (VMAP) is an FY86

baseline is a SWATH but a raonohuli variant will also be

comparison. The SWATH, which may be considered as a

control ship (VSTOL aircraft), is currently sized at

tons.

CCX SWATH

9

CONFORM design. The

sized and costed for

small carrier or sea somewhat over 30,000

A near term CG monohull baseline design is being developed as an FY86 CONFORM

design. A brief study of a SWATH variant to the CGX will also be developed.

ATS(X) SWATH (Figures 30 through 34)

Work is progressing well on this FY86 CONFORM design for a high speed salvage

rescue tug. The SWATH is now sized at 6877 tons compared to a monohull at

5023 tons.

specifically for the mission of submarine resupply on the ice cap. The s e

SEA 50151

Kenneth B. Spaulding

7 April, 1986

Future Applications of the SWATH Concept

Back ground

With the Japanese Kaiyo in operation, the feasibility of

a 3500 ton SWATH

is firmly established.

Based on this and many years of analysis and model

testing, with operational feedback from numerous small

SWATHs,

the U.S. has

completed the contract design for a 3400 ton

SWATH T-AGOS,

scheduled for an

acquisition contract award in fiscal 1986.

The naval architecture, marine engineering and hydrodynamics of

SWATh are

well understood and documented (refs 1-3 are examples).

_Credible

hydrodynamic, structural and design synthesis computer tools are available for

SWATH.

Materials, structures, and virtually all subsystems for

a SWATH may be

standard Navy or corrmercial practice.

_{The only sadvancedu aspect of a SWATH,}

in reality, is the hydrodynamics (configuration, structural loads,

resistance,

motions, manuevering and control).

SWATH

structures are clearly more complex

than monohulls, but at this point, SWATH structural design is well understood

and risks are acceptable.

NAVSEA

cost estimating algorithms, at the 3 digit SWBS level, are

currently dentical to those for monohulls.

As there are more of the lower

cost elements in a SWATH, the total light ship dollars per ton is somewhat

less than the figure for a rnonohull.

These costing algorithms have been

validated by several shipyard studies of 3,000 and 7,000 ton

SWATHs

with

equivalent morohulls.

_{Shipbuilder bids on lAGOS this year will test the}

validity of our cost analysis.

Comparative studies of

SWATH

and monohull '1payload driven'1 designs show

that for identical payloads, the

SWATH

will have a full load displacement 1.2

to 1.6 times that of the rnonohull, with the 60% increase at the lower

displacement end (1500-2000 tons).

_{The T-AGOS SWATH displaces 1.5 times the}

equi val ent payload monohul i and a seri es of fri gate desi gn compari sons showed

a delta of about 40%.

0vr 20,000 tons the delta may be reduced to 20%.

Recent SWATH

designs, because of their sensitivity to weight growth (20% of

monohull tons per inch), have been burdened with

_{a 5-10% service life margin}

in the form of ballast or increased fuel when initially delivered.

Clearly there is ari element of conservatism, (often associated

_{with any}

new concept) in the USN SWATH designs.

As hardware experience rows and the

design tools are applied industriously to wei1t reduction and volume

utilization, the SWATH delta will decrease to some degree.

However, the

SWATH

concept is an inherently inefficient confi jration for enclosing volume.

Reduction of unusable volume in

SWATH

designs will not eliminate this Inherent

characteristic.

ATTACHMENT i

1

In stlnmary then; we can desii,

_{cost, and presumably build, SWATHs}

_with

considerable confidence at least

_{to about 4000 tons displacement.}

_{In fact,}

the TMfeasibilltyN of 20,000 to

_{30,000 ton SWATHs is not seriously}

_questioned

though they may not be cost effective and

_{their size will Introduce building,}

operating and facilities difficulties.

SWATH Applications

We have established a premise that, for

_{an equal payload, payload driven}

SWATH desiìs are expected to be more expensive than the payload equivalent

monohull.

_{The dominant advantage of a SWATH is}

_{reduced motions with sustained}

speed In high sea states (S.s. 6, 7).

_{The Naval Studies Board (NSB) Frigate}

analysis (ref 3) concluded that

_{a 9100 ton monohull was required to achieve}

helo operability in northern latitudes

_{equal to that of a 7100 ton}

_{SWATh. The}

aquisition cost of the

_{seakeeping equivalent}

_{monohull was 15% higher than}

the SWATH.

_{Clearly then, where seakeeping in}

_{consistently high sea states is}

a requirement, the SWATH has an edge which

_{increases rapidly with diminishing}

size.

_{Other frigate studies indicate that}

_{excellent helo operability may be}

achieved at displacements down to 5,000

_tons.

_{For T-AGOS and smaller ships}

(down to 200 or 300 tons), for

_{high sea states, SWATH may be the only}

practical solution.

The Naval Studies Board (NSB) results imply

_{that SWATH will be an}

attractive candidate for a frigate to operate in

_{northern latitudes.}

_SWATH

frigate alternatives have, accordingly, been

_{pursued actively in the current}

FFX studies.

A Canadian ASW escort SWATH desi

_{Is currently under}

developiient, also, for the NATO Advanced Vehicles

_{Special Working Group 6.}

The basic issue is one of affordability.

_{With a weight delta of 40%, the cost}

of this increased capability is siiificant

_{although weight increases are}

principally in group 1.

_{One might also conclude from the NSB studies}

_that,

given the entirely adequate operability of helos

_{in a 9100 ton monohull, a}

SWATH over 10,000 tons would never be cost competitive with a monohull.

On

the other hand there are those who will argue that reduction of motions even

on the large aircraft carriers would be of great benefit.

_{The displacement}

and cost delta for SWATH also diminishes with

_{increasing size.}

_{In summary}

there appears to be a TMpoint of diminishing

_returns

_{associated with}

increasing displacements of air capable SWATH

_{ships.. Whether that is 11,000}

tons or 30,000 tons is unclear at this time.

_{A deslg for SWATH and monohull}

variants of a uVariable Mission Air PlatformTM (VMAP) Is underway under the FY

86 CONFORM program.

_{At this point the SWATH solution appears to be}

_near

30,000 tons.

This will produce a reference point on the high end.

Desigo studies of SWATH variants for AGOR,

_{AGS, and AGI missions continue}

(3,000-5,000 tons).

_{SWATH Is clearly competitive In those areas where the}

requirements include continuous operation in high sea states.

SWATH is even

more attractive for smaller ships such as Coast Guard offshore patrol

vessels,but at this time there are no U.S.

_{Navy requirements for ships of this}

si ze.

The Timeline

The SWATH T-AGOS goes to contract in 1986.

_{We will then have a 3400 ton}

SWATH operating in 1990.

_{Meanwhile, desis for a follow-on T-AGOS will}

_be

developed and a SWATH frigate desiì will receive further attention, as will

larger air capable

SWATHs. AGOR,

AGS and AGI SWATHs will also be studied.

Two considerations are noteworthy:

There is a strong incentive to await the operational results of an

oning project

(T-AGos)

before ccnuniting to a larger or distinctly

different SWATH.

When the larger

SWATH

is built the increment in size

will be limited by the perceived risks.

-Historically, there has never been a comitnient to construction of

any

advanced vehicle, with the attendant cost and risks, unless lt

clearly provided a very slificant increase in capability.

Pro's & Con's of

SWATH

In considering the future of the

SWATH

concept a look at sorne aspects

other than the previously discussed seakeeping advantages is warranted.

Pro

o

reduced motions and sustained speeds In high sea states

o

flexibility of geometry - readily adaptable to runways and on-deck

hangars for example

o

improved sonar platform (greater submergence, Isolation from noise

sources)

o

_{improved weapons/sensors performance associated with reduced motions}

o

improved habitability and all-around htrnan effectiveness

o

improved gear handling interface with sea surface

o

potential for reduced vulnerability and increased survivability

o

increased freeboard (pro or con depending on mission)

o

improved intact stability

Con

o

cost and wei ght delta for payload driven desi

ìs

o

si

ii ficant increase in unusable vol une

o

increased resistance (reduced calm water speed & increased fuel for

endurance)

o

increased draft

o

increased beam (drydocks/Panama Canal)

o

increased freeboard (pro or con depending on mission)

o

load/weight growth sensitivity

o

increased ballast/fuel system requirements

o

decreased length for topside antenna arrangements

o

protruding hulls and propellers beyond box (forward, aft, and sides)

for ship and tow handling

o

one deck configration In smaller sizes

o

increased directional stability / large tactical diameters

o HVAC

loads increase with surface area

o

active control fins may be required

Areas of Concern & R & D Plans

As previously discussed the design tools must be applied to reducing

structural we1ìt and Improving voli.zne utilization.

Continuing producibilty studies along with actual construction experience

are expected to reduce construction costs in group 1.

Damage stability criteria will be reviewed.

SWATH motions after damage

need further study,

Desi

tools will continue to be developed and refined.

Hull form and control systems studies, particularly for hi gier speed

applications, may be expected.

Survivability and siiature studies are expected, particularly with

respect to a SWATH frigate variant.

Siniary

From a naval architecture and technolo' standpoint SWATH is well

understood and SWATHs to over 20,000 tons may be confidently desiged.

Costs

per ton are competitive with monohulls.

SWATHs are most attractive in the

smaller sizes (less than 5,000 tons) where the seakeeping improvement over the

monohull is most dramatic.

_{The U.S. Navy will contract for construction of a}

3400 ton SWATH T-AGOS in 1986 and may actively pursue desis for a SWATH AGOR,

AGS, AGI and FFX.

Selection of SWATH for a given mission depends on cost

benefit analysis.

The future of SWATH for air capable ships of FF size and

larger is unclear.

References

Chapter III, NSWATH ShipsTM, Naval Engineers Journal, February, 1985

Naval Architecture of SWATH Ships, by Colen Kennell & Richard Holcomb,

RINA Syfllposit.tT1 On SWATH, April 1985

Naval Studies Board SWATH Frigate Desi

and Seakeeping Study.

SWCM

FIGURE 1

SSP KAIMALINO

FIGURE 2

IdIIIIItttr1.

(E) 98-li OH 900

E 3Ufl9U

DUPLUS/TWIN DRILL

(ç) 9H- I-S UU

s ]UflDH

t:; ¡'il

fi

/

' '/ì 4/II

AALC JEFF (A)

FIGURE 6

DDG RD S-1 -86(6)

o

N

(L)9R--s OH 900

L 3Ufl9IJ

,.A.9

-

'.

-

a'.:-'-...k

tI.''PM9.

:.

-.

:'.

. -.z

AP-188

;:-.

t

-e.. : FIGURE 8 DDG RD 5-1-86(8) .

.-LACV-30

FIGURE 9

CUARACIEHISTICS

toc

- 1932

GWJ(LT) 51.3

SPEED (KIS) - '40

RANGE (NM) - 3'10

PAYLOAD (LT) - 30

LENGTH (ET) - 76.5

BEAM (ET) - 36.7

CHEW - 2

LACV-30

U.S. ARMY LACV 30 CLASS

FIGURE 10

-% .'.,

.- .

¿ - __ -. .-.

-, - -.-.-,. -'

i-:.---;' :..

--w --.

'i.":.:.

¡

-.-,- .'--

_a-DOG RD 5-1-86(10)

D-PAAC

FIGURE 11

u'

GRIFFON 2500 TD

I

/

/

j J f j i / /1 7.

FIGURE 12

¿

DOG RO 5-1-86(12)

Ei 3iflEI.J

ALBATROSS (HYDROFOIL)

FIGURE 14

T-w

V,

'-S

FJELLSTRAND 38.8M CATAMARAN

FIGURE 16

PXM ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY

FIGURE 17

(IS VARIANT I

C/S VARIANT II

C/S VARIANT III

C/S VARIANT IV

MONOFIULL

H4OTONS

Z4OFT

O5OTONS

262FT

960T0N5

262Fr

113OTONS

270Fr

HYDROFOIL

430 TONS

144FT

590 TONS

159FT

I

600 TONS

159FT

750 TONS

175FT

SES

1300TONS

252FT

139OTONS

252FT

1400TONS

252FT

145OTONS

252FT

__

--N 41 e

PXM

I!1._i_"

I IN tiluiwliPo Po ut

-Po_ atN* FIGURE 18

'-I

N Iv - a

"u"

MII*

'r 00G RD 4-30-86(2) 'u4f101Pt) 4 rut ILL S Nd 114 lItI

II.

. uI III. 0*q. 1 n Il. *lI N. ION .

SI.

-e r 5. PM I UVISIUI NN PIM t. VIfltM4t t 4qw1 4

''A

PXM

HYDRO FOIL PXM

-

PROPULSION

HULLBORNE

- 2 1000-BHP DIESELS

-3600 TRAINABLE OUTDRI

VES WI PROPELLERS

FOILBORNE

_{- WATERJET}

2 18,000 BHP PHM PUMPS -TOR NOT MET

2 NEW 25,000 BHP PUMPS REQUIRED (5 YRS, $ 25M)

-PROPELLER

i 1M-2500 WI Z-DRIVE

- RIGHT ANGLE BEVEL GEARS

-- EPICYCLIC REDUCTION GEAR IN PODS

2 FIXED-PITCH, SUPER-CA VITATING PROPS

ii DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REQUIRED FOR

DRIVE TRAIN (4 YRS, $20M)

PXM

_e

j

FIGURE 20 .. a a ta

- e

a I, a a q - a DOG RD 4-30-86(4)

f..,

S .0 4S fl 4 3111( I P*Qliifl I

j1T

-C ql

r

a

.:ae_l5:

_-N_-:

:

L:

-

--PXM

SES PXM

SUB-SYSTEM

STRUCTURE

-HULL; HSLA-80 PRIMARY STRUCTURE

OS STEEL SECONDARY STRUCTURE

DECKHOUSE: OS STEEL

i

PXM

SES PXM

LI FT/PROPULSION

LIFT SYSTEM

-4-DIESELS

-8- ROTATING DIFFUSER FANS

RIDE CONTROL SYSTEM

-INLETGUIDE VANES

- VENT

VALVES

FEEDBACK CONTROL SYSTEM

PROPULSION SYSTEM

-2-1M-2500 GAS TURBINES

-2- TRANS-CAVITATING, SEMI-SUBMERGED,

CONTROLLABLE PITCH PROPELLERS

FIGURE 22

SWATH T-AGOS

FtGURE 23

SWATH T-AGOS

REQUIREMENTS

DISPLACEMENT

- 3380 TONS

SUSTAINED SPEED

- 9-1OKTS

ENDURANCE AT 3 KTS

- 60-90 DAYS

ENDURANCE AT SUSTAINED SPEED

- 3,000 N. MI.

(IN ADDITION TO 3 KT REQM'T)

FULL MISSION CAPABILITY IN SEA STATE 6

CONTINUE SURVEILLANCE AT BEST HEADING IN SEA STATE 7

DAY-LIGHT, HIGH HOVER ONLY CAPABILITY FOR COMMER-

CIAL HELICOPTERS AND H-1, H-2 AND H-46 HELICOPTER

STABILITY

- ONE COMPARTMENT SUB DIVISION

- RADIATED NOISE - T-AGOS 13 NOISE REQUIREMENTS

- ADDITIONAL NOISE REQUIREMENTS OVER

T-AGOS 13 SHALL BE INCORPORATED OR

PROVISIONS FOR BACKFIT MADE

- ICE STRENGTHENING - CLASS "C" - 1985 ABS RULES

- RMA - AVAILABILITY. OF 0.97

ACCOMODATIONS

CREW

22

TECH

7

TRANSIENTS

5

TOTAL

34

FIGURE 24

SWATH T-AGOS

FIGURE 25

SWATH T-AGOS

HULL FORM PRODUCIBILITY FEATURES

- PARALLEL MID BODY 65 FT.

- STRAIGHTLINE SHEAR FOR WARDIAFT

- CONICAL TAPERED SECTIONS FOR WARDIAFT

- NO COMPOUND CURVATURES

- BOW INTERSECTION AT MAIN DECK MODIFIED TO PROVIDE

FLAT PLATE CONNECTION

- STRUTS FLAT PLATES VICE PARABOLIC SHAPE

- TRANSVERSE KNUCKLES IN LO WER HULL, STRUTS HAUNCHES

AND WET DECK ALIGNED VERTICALLY

FIGURE 26

SWATH T-AGOS WEIGHTS

INCLUDED 55 TONS OF CD MARGIN LEFT AT END OF CP

FIGURE 27

SWBS

GROUPS

FEASIBILITY

BASELINE

(09116185)

CURRENT

(3114186)

1. STRUCTURES

1398.5

1593.9

2. PROPULSION

72.6

66.1

3. ELECTRICAL

118.7

130.3

4. COMMANDICONTROL

48.7

41.9

5. AUXILIARIES

475.7

350.3

6. HULL FURNISHINGS

247.4

236.2

7. ARMAMENT

0.2

.3

SUMMARY

2361.8

2419.3

CONTRACT DESIGN MARGIN

165.3

CONSTA. MARGINS

206.0

246.9 *

LOADS

770.4

711.6

FULL LOAD

3503.5

3377.8

SWATH T-AGOS

RUDDERS/APPENDAGES

DESIGN REQUIREMENT

-PROVIDE

COURSE-KEEPING TO HOLD IN BEAM SEA STATE 6

RUDDERS

-ANGLED RUDDERS FORWARD OF THE

PROPELLERS (210 FT2)

-TACTICAL DIAMETER

-1130 YARDS AT 9 KNOTS

-1425 YARDS AT 3 KNOTS

-CONVENTIONAL COMMERCIAL SYSTEM -

TWIN RAMICLEVIS ARRANGEMENT

CANARDS

-TRAINABLE CANARDS FORWARD AND

INBOARD ON EACH HULL (185 FT2)

-

ELECTRO-MECHANICAL DRIVE

USCG SWATH

I.

--ATS(X) SWATH

o

t,

SIflTI-(

flT3(X)

FIGURE 30 DOG RO 4-30-86(14)

ATS(X) SWATH

I i

Ls

*fb*kJuc.

SrEZLr,

Cyi.$ EJRF FIGURE 32

s'frn4 1rrs(,)

E1?R

CE1-ro

rOa

/

PA DOG RD 4-30-86(16)

COMPARISON OF CAPABILITIES

ITEM I IIONOHULL I

SWATH

I

AIS

i I

ARS 50

+ + +

Sustained Speed

I

20.2 kte

I

18.8 kte

16 kte I

13.2 kts

+ + + +

Bollard Pull

I

300,000

lbs

I 370000 lbs

I

150,000 lbs

I

131,000 lbs

(with Cavitation)

I I I I + I 10,000 n.m.

Endurance

I 11 kt8. +

Thruster Size

I

1-800 hp

+ I

Yes

Ice Strengthened?

I

Clues C

+

Firefighting

I (Seawater)

8000 6PM

Firef icihting (AFFF)

HUll repair

depths

Crane/Boon elze

Beach Gear

+ t

8000 6PM

I for I

15 mInutes

+ I 190 Ft. + I

20 Ton

+ I

8Sets

I

4 Puliera

+

ATS(X) SWATH

+ + + t

10,000 n.m.I

10,000 n.m.I

8,000 n.m.

t

12 Kts.

I

13

kts. I

8 kts

+ I

2-800 hp

+ t

Yes

I

Clues C

+ I

8000 6PM

+ I

8000 6PM

I

2000 6PM

I

for

I

for

I

15 minutea

t

20 minutes

I

30 minutes

+ + + I t I I 190 Ft. I 279 Ft. I 190 Ft. + + + I

20

Ton

t

20

Ton t

40 Ton

+ + + I

B

Sets

I I

6Sets

I

4 PulIera

I t

2 Puliera

+ + + FIGURE 33 + I

i-300 hp

+

No

+ I

4500 6PM

+ I

1-500 hp

+ I

Yes

I

Class C

+

4000 6PM

+ I

2000 6PM

IDG RO 4-30-86(1

ATS(X) SWATH

COMPARISON OF CAPABILITIES (cont)

ITEM

I

MONOHULL

I

SWATH

¡ AIS i I

ARS 50

+ + 4-+

Storeroom Vol.

I 32,400 Cu. Ft. I

40,000 Cu.Ft

I 31,400 Cu.f t I 20,000 Cu.Ft. + + + +

Clear

Deck Ara

I

4,500 Sq. Ft.I

8,500 Sq.Ft

I

2,900 Sq.Ft

2,700 Sq.f t + + + + I I I

75.KW

Off Ship Power

I 1,500 KW I

1,500 KW

Portable

I

(Portable)

+ + + +

4 Pt. Moor?

I

Yes

I Yes I Yes I

Yes

+ + + + I MK I

& MK XII

I MI< i & MK XIII

HEO 2

I MI< i & Ml< XII

Diving System

I

Diving SstemsIDlving SstemsI (Mixed Gas)

I

Diving Systems

+ + + +

Displacement

I 5023 L.T. I 6877 L.T. I

3250 LT.

I 3113 L.T. + + + +

LWL

I 332 Ft. I 248 Ft. I 264 Ft. I 240 Ft. + + + +

Beam

I 55 Ft. I 96 Ft. I 50 Ft. I 51 Ft. + + + +

Draft

I 20 Ft. I 25 Ft. I 15;6 Ft. I 16.2 Ft. + 9. + +

No. of Workboats

I 1 ¡ i I

2

I

2

+ + +

SHP

I 17, 100 I 17, 100 I

6,000

I

4,000

+___1. + + +

Elect. Cap.

I

5500 KW

I

6400 KW

I 1200 KW I

2250

KW + + + + FIGURE 34 DOG RO 4-30-86(18)